You make so many statements in your new article about me
that
I am not getting drawn into countering one by one but the
fact that
the hook used is my Statement made during this august, I
must ask you
to address some of the more serious errors of 'fact'.

You are correct in the fact that the unnamed
journalist was ex..BBC's John Macnish.
To use your own terms, I was there, you were not and you
have no way of knowing
the great deal of confidential information Macnish and his
wife gave me that night. What I have stated is 100% true.

I have been stating 80/20% for as long as my findings
suggested those were the approx..
levels. I appeared on US TV with these around the time you
and I met and discussed them
in Nottingham after the TV program there.

I have been acknowledging these levels for around 2 years
now and did state this year during
my recent media blitz. The work carried out the last two
years have reinforced the findings.

As I said I am not going to get pulled further into the most
unpleasant aspects of all this with
those who are deliberately deceiving the public. You will
know I am not a person who finds fun in making crop circles
to deceive others as you do. I have invested my reputation,
profession and
marriage in trying to resolve the apparent puzzle. At this
point I have proven to myself that
you and your friends (and others before) are at least 80% of
that puzzle and if you are proud of that, so be it. I am
proud to have put myself on the line to be honest with my
conclusions. The
80/20% have not made me friends amongst those who want to
believe everything comes from
ET's etc..nor yourselves who want to keep your games going
for reasons many find baffling. With those who just want to
know, I have been a welcome breath of fresh air in a very
heavily contaminated scene.

I wish you would refer in your attacks to your own
responsibilities when it comes to perpetrating a myth on
unwitting genuine peoples around the world have taken
important actions as a direct
result of the crop formations and your reluctance to be
honest about your involvement over the years. Peoples like
the native Americans, government officials and scientists
etc... You have a lot more to answer for than I who have
come forward with my recent findings because I am concerned
with these responsibilities.

I look forward to the day you make my job and that of
serious fellow researchers easy and post all the formations
you have made and call them what they are man made art -
without all the deliberate deception and trouble making.

Best wishes
Colin

PS: At Andover I said that about 6 formations were filmed
being made - that stands. Some
were with TV camera's and others you are aware by others
with permission of those making
the circles. The latter were not TV cameras. Example the
"r" symbol and also one other complex design. I have no reasons to state anything other
than what I have learned. The Myths I leave to the
creators - your team and the others.

THE CIRCLEMAKERS REPLY (by Rod Dickinson):

I don't doubt that John Macnish gave you much confidential information. He told me this too on many occasions. I also know he felt very strongly that you were not honest with him, and did not share information with him in the same way. At NO point in my text do I state he did not give you confidential information.Moreover you write

"Unknown to Doug and Dave, they were being filmed as they made the circles by the BBC journalist."

You know that John and Doug and Dave worked together right from the first time they agreed upon a course of action. Both John and Doug have told me this first hand. John DID covertly film people making circles ONCE in the Avebury/Alton Barnes area in Wiltshire - and he has no idea who he was filming as he never 'caught' them, only succeeded in filming them. but since Doug and Dave didn't make any circles in that area it wasn't them.

In your media appearances this summer you were portrayed as a scientist conducting a scientific experiment. If it is a bonafide scientific experiment, following scientific protocol (with double blind tests etc) how could you possibly know the results of the experiment before it had concluded. After all it was whole year ago in Nottingham when we spoke together and you told me you thought 80% of circles were man made and 20% were not. A whole year that your experiment had left to run. Yet you were already announcing the results...

Both in your recent statement and at the conference in Andover you gave the impression that 6 or 7 formations from the 2000 season were going to be exposed on TV. In fact the only formation to be shown being made this year will be our Wrexham formation (which is hardly an expose-since we announced it in advance), which we made for Channel 4. And the only other two formations to be filmed were the "r" symbol (which was a paid commission of a comapny logo, made in daylight) and one other. That's 3 not 6. With no expose!

In this respect of all of the above I stand by my original text - unless you can show me more convincing arguments that your statements are justified.

We too have invested 10 years in circlemaking as part of my artform. You may feel we think it is fun, but that is not the way we have portrayed our work to you or anyone else. Our position is taken with a good deal more thoroughness and seriousness than many crop circle researchers!

I am still amazed that after your dealings with John Macnish, and after talking with oursleves you give any credence to the idea that any circles have a non human origin.

Your comment,

"With those who just want to know, I have been a welcome breath of fresh air in a very heavily contaminated scene."

is very disingenous. Often, as in your last press release, your statements are misleading and confusing (when as we do, one knows the history and current development of the subject). I have a myriad of other examples of similiar statements you have made that are misleading.

You are reponsible for perpetrating the myths that surround the circles - to this very day! Not us, the Circlemakers. It was not ourselves or Doug Bower who attempted to convince governments, indigenous peoples etc that the circles had a non human origin. If our circles and designs have moved people in the past years I am also convinced that it was because (perhaps unconsciously) of their instinctive reponse to magnificent artworks, rather than solely the belief that they have a non human origin.

We the Circlemakers have been the most open and most thorough in informing those who do not have our insiders view of the subject. Our thoroughness resides in the lack of personal belief we have at stake (beyond an enthusiasm for the subject), unlike every other self appointed crop circle spokesperson...